The Sun. — London, England, 1818-11-14 00:00:00

PROVINCIAL JOURNALS. Aq tie advocates for POPERY are I kely again to hring forward the gnestion of what they stile CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION, meaning nothing t' , ereby but the possession of POLITICAL Powgß, in urger to enable them, if possible, to snbvert the PROTESTANT RELIGION, we have extracted the following judicious remarks from a respect able Dublin Paper, heartily concurring in the bole scope of its reasoning. (Front The Hibernian Chronicle) C,ITHOLIC EMANICIPAtIOI4.—Upon this qoes tiiiii we have always taken a decidedly active, but impartial part—and although we differ in the con clusions which many draw as to its completioo being the ground-work of conciliatiog the opi nions and prejudices of Irishmen, still- we have endeavoured to strew that in discuSsing its merits' we have at all times laid aside local prejudices and all angry feelings. We wish we could say as much for those who have written for the Boman 'Catholic Press, and spoken for the Roman Catho lic Cause, We wish we could believe, that yielding demands of the Catholics wool] protect us from their ascendancy in Church and State, and we should be the first to give in on the occasion. But with the remembrance of past oc currences before our eyes, we must not, we dare not, nay we C;10110t, bOtidivillk our eyes from the light of truth, or our senses from the influence of experieoce. Suppose, for instance, that the goes tiou were decided to-morrow, have we nor.aei dance before us of what is to follow ? The Catho lic Nobility and Gentry would no longer have the slightest itatence, unless it were intended that the' Ascendancy of the Church was to he invaded by the admission of Popish Bishops into the House of Lords, and Popish Agitators into the 1-louse of Commons, and this we cannot for a moment suppose can ever he allowed. If the definition of Catholic Emancipation, by Mr. Colontbattos O'Connor, the Catholic Bishop's Brother, be correct, and which he has published-, it means the restoration of the Roman Catholic Religion as the E4tablislied one of the Country ! This would be an awful event ! Now, in support of our position, that the Roman Catholic Nobility and Gentry would lose their influence by the question of Emancipation being carried, we need quote no better authority on the occasion than the speech of 111 r. Bernard Coyle, one of the most eminent Catholic Leaders at the Board, and in which lie publicly denounced my Lord Fingal! as a traitor to his cause, because he proposed Thanks to the Doke of kVeilington, at a Public Meeting in the County Meath ! But this is not all for we have declaration of Mr. O'Connell before us, at an Aggregate Meeting, at which Sir James Riddall presided, to this purport—that he would compromise, on the part of the Catho lics, for a re-enactment of the whole rod code by a Repeal of the Union ! We have also a proposition in the Board to invite a Foreign Power to interfere in the claims of the Catholics of Ireland ; and above all, lye, have an Address • calc-ilaied to off - end a Royal Personage, and upon it subject too delicate even to mention. Are we nor, Len, to expect that passing the Question % v o id ( ' read to augment the fears and jealousies of our coutorymen, in place of allaying them ? In the fits: place, nine -tenths of the Protestants of Ire-haul are averse to the measure ; and in the next • place, wr,itaiint; the question of the-Repeal of the U n ion would he morelikelv to throw the coon ' try into confu , ioothan !wenty quest:ous of ElliAtt cipat ion would do ; for we cannot disguise • the tact, however ill-founded the premises may he, that a Repeal of the Union would be a much, • mote popular subjrct of discussion than Catholic Emancipation, and therefore it is the more to he dreaded. 'Can we think, either, that the smother ed sentiments of violent Demagogues _will perish by being defeated ? No, we should rather expect tint explosion to be greater by longer confinement, and that all those angry feelings would burst forth upon us the instant that restraint was removed. Such are our reasons for considering the ques tion as one more likely to promote the discon tents of Irishmen than to conciliate them.—We ts;:r not with.any man for his religion ; we should not he Protestants, were we to do so, and we wisl4 as well to Catholics, individually, as we do to Protestants. But arc we to shut out from our recollection such facts as we have stated, and are we not to dread a recurrence of consequences similar to those we have know() ? Let the Cacho licS:give us, therefore, security, and we shall not fear Emancipation. In England, for instance, where people have learned to think and to act upon the noble principles of the British Consti tution, we hear little - or nothing of Emancipation, although in Englaod a Catholic cannot vote at an Election for a Member of Parliament, whereas in Ireland be can no:: only vote for one, but is dis satisfied that he cannot be in Parliament him self ! In the common - interchanges of property between man and man, security is requisite ; and yet in a question in which the existence of the Constitution is involved, all security is refused by the applicants. Will any man say this is reasonable,. and can any rational Catholic refuse to join wit-it us in the foregoing opinions ? There is, Flowerier, in this country a very erroneous opi nioo preValent that all those who oppose Catholic EmaneiPat ion offend the Catholic Religion : and a pusillanimous Lord Mayor, aware of this, refused to give a toast which every enlightened Catholic as wellaS Protestant cottld not refuse to drink. Why alt this is the extrenie of folly—for surely politics and_ religion are very different things, and, be sides, too, this over-weening delicacy Would look as if the country was essentially Catholic, where as three-fourths of the landed property of Ireland is in the hands of Protestants—and it has been :roved, that its physical strength of Protestants been at all times triumphant. Who is there, fore, who talks of conciliating Catholics to the total exclusion of those who saved ,ountrv, that must-not prove labouring under eficieney . of foresight ? and who will deny, evidence of the great Catholic Star, Mr. f.loit were Emancipation to pass to lie. very next question for agitation ,t Repeal of the Union ? Need we then ~'~. ,: say to what a pliglit would total Emancipation bring us ! Catholics in Parliantent, though few in number, kvould naturally look to a ParliAtnent in their country. The dic' (ince cast, the throw could not he so easily revoked, hot the chance should follow. But from such a chance 1113 y we be protected. (FROM Tit E SAME PAPER.) FfIF.P.TIASONRY —This most ancient Order has received a dreadful stab to its advancement in Spain, by King Ferdinand being allowed to use II the powers of the Inquisilion by the Pope.— We could, wish his Holiness were more liberal to a Society founded purely on principles of friendship and brotherly love. • Bit are we not, when we come to look at home, as untrue to the advancement of the Order ourselves, when we have a large sum in pocket to build a Freemason Hall, not a stone of which has been hid, or the money refunded—" Call you this backing your friends i" BoND HoLna have mitch pleasure in finding, that the Trustees appointed by the Cor poration On this subject, are conducting the bind 'less entrusted to their care with great fidelity.— A proposition, we understand, was moved, but overruled, to pay the Corporation Officers. — Now really this refusal was hard, as to many de serving individuals ; but the general principle must be admitted as only fair, as men should be just before they Are generons ; and, therefore, as the first object of appointing Trnstees was to watch over the property of the Bond Holders, they were perfectly con ect in giving it precedence before an±, , other subject. Jr is most,gratifying, then, o know, that after borrowing six or eight thou sand pounds, the interest on the Bonds will be paid forthwith at six per cent., and five per cent. paid afterwards until a redundancy of revenue comes round to enable the Corporation to pay the difference. 'ibis, we understand, is the fact 35'11 now stands, and of which no .man in his senses can be found to disappiove. We hope, therefore, to hear no more of law-suits, which can only foil the good intention of those who are otherwise inclined to act fairly to all parties for the common good of all. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, Nor. 13, CoLEBROOKE V. LEE. Mr. HART, at the sitting of the Court, said, he bad to request that his Lordship would direct the order he made on the 15th of August last, to be drawn up by the Registrar. The case had been referred to Master Cox, to inquire and re port who was a fit guardian for the children un der present circumstances, and that Gentleman had reported that Lady Colebrooke was a pro pel and fit person for the task. Meantime, how ever, the Lady died, and his Lordship again or dered that it should he referred to Mr. Cox to appoint some person else in her place, but un fortunately at the time this reference took place Mr. Cox was in the country, and therefore it came before Mr. Courteusy. The Court could there fore, he conceived, have no objection to have the, order drawn up, as it seemed to have been omitted by the Registrar, whose immense busi ness was a most satisfactory apology for, the Oversight. The Loan CHANCELLOR said, lie was at' a loss to see the purport of thin motion, tor Mr. Cox would never have made the appointment had Lady Colebrooke been dead.. • Mr. Helier admitted that, but said she had died previous to the discussion on the Repot t. In the order he now wiOied for, he particularly felt that it would he proper - to add to it, that the Master to Eshom the cause now stood referred should in- . quire and report how far it might be proper for the mother so see her daughters alone, or in the company of others. The LORD CIiANCELLOR said, the Registrar had as' well draw up the order with this addition to it, as that might be the most satistac_tory for ail parties. Mr. WALKER (the Registrar) .said, it should lie done with as little delay ors could possibly take place. The other cases were of no public interest, and his Lordship' rose at twenty minutes after three. lie evidently laboured under much pain through the day from a severe' attack of the gout.— Thongh fully ready to give a number of judg- Ments, he was unable to do so from the pain he was under. counT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 13. BARING AND OTHERS V. COWRIE AND OTHERS. This was an action for goods sold am! delivered. At the trial before Lord Ellenhorough, in the sit tings after Michaelmas Term, 1811, a verdict was tntind for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court, upon a special case. Li - ,st Term that case was argued, but the Court considering the question to be of so much importance, ordered a second argument, and now the further argument was entered into. The leading circumstances of the case were these :—Messrs. Baring and Co., merchants, hay. ing a considerable quantity of sugar to dispose of, employed their brokers, Messrs. Coles, ,brothers, /o sell the same. The latter united with their cha racter of brokers that of merchants, and in each carried on a very extensive business. Amongst other persons with whom they had mercantile transactions were Messrs. Corrie and Co., the de fendants, to whom they were considerably indebted. Flaying these sugars to dispose of, Messrs. Coles, brothers, sold them to the defendants, apparently in the character of merchants, but certainly with out professing to act as brokers, and without dis closing the names of their principals. The sale baying been completed, however, they gave an order to the defendants upon the West Indi a Dock Company for the delivery of the sugars, in which order the names of Messrs. Baring and Co. were inserted, importing that they were the owners. The defendants took no steps to ascertain whether Messrs. Coles, brothers, sold in the character of brokers or of merchants, and under tl►is order they received the sugars. After this transaction, Messrs. Coles, brothers, became bankrupts, and the plaintiffs discovering how the sugars had been disposed of, brought. their action against the defendants to recover the amount, in 1 consequence of their refusal to pay it. At the trial the defendants resisted the action, upon the ground that Messrs. Coles, bro thers, were indebted - to them for more than the value of the sugars, contending that they had a right to set off against the plaintiff's de mand the debt due to them from Messrs. Coles, brothers, relying upon the case of George •v. Claggett, 7T. R. 539, where it was held, that if a factor who sells under a del credere commis-. sion, sell goods as his own, and the buyer know nothing of the principal, the htiFer tray set off any demand he may have on the factor against the demand for the, goodsnmade by the principal. The Court held that the defence was not avail able, and the plaintiffs had a verdict, subject to the opinion of this Court, ußon the question, whether, under the circumstances above stated, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover ? The case was now very ably argued at consi derable length by Mr. Puller for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Scarlett for the defendants ; and the case resolved itself, by the admission on both sides, into this principle—that, where the loss must tall upon one of two innocent persons, it shall fall upon him who is less innocent. A great deal of learning was evinced on both sides, in distin guishing between the characters of a factor and a broker, and all the cases bearing upon this ques tion were reviewed with considerable acuteness and ability. The plaintiffs' Counsel distinguished this case from that of George v. Claggett, by the circum stance, that there the buyer knew nothing of the principal, whereas here, the delivery order dis closed the names of the plaintiffs, as having some thing to do at least with the goods, whereby a necessity was imposed upon the defendants to make further inquiries into the subject. The question, it was admitted, certainly was, whether the negligence on the part at the defendants was greater than the !aches on the part of the plain tiffs ? if the Court should be of opinion that the defendants were less innocent in this respect than the plaintiffs, the latter would be clearly entitled to recover. The COURT delivered their opinion seriatim. The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that if the defendant could succeed in this case, the necessary conse quence would be, that the goods of one merchant might be applied to the discharge of the goods of another, through the medium of a third person. It did not appear that there was any strong rea son or authority applicable to- this case, which could induce the Court to sanction this position. Undoubtedly, the principle, that where the losi must fall upon one of two innocent persons, it should fall upon bins who was less innocent, was. the test of this case, and very naturally applied•to the circumstances stated. If the negligence of the defendants was greater than that of the plain tiffs, the latter would be entitled to recover upon this principle. It was a well-established rule of law, applicable to this class of cases, that if a fac tor is entrusted by his principal with the posses sion 'of goods, and pledges them, although the person who takes them be ignorant of the fact that they are not the goods of the 'factor, the principal may recover them, back. If a master employs a setvant or any other person, to dis pose of a piece of plate, according to his own occasions, and the servant should sell it on his own account, the master might , 'recover baCk his property. The question in , this case was, whe ther there had been greater negligence on the one side than on the other. What wet e the circum stances of the case ? The fact was known to ..both parties, that Messrs. Coles, brothers, were acting in the double capacity of merchants and brokers, but the point for consideration was, whether the defendants, with the knowledge of this circum, stance, were less cautious than the plaintiffs. The distinction between a factor and . a broker, however they might for some purposes be the Fame, was .very great in many particulars. ,A factor was generally a person to whom goods were consigned for sale by a merchant residing abroad, and by virtue of his authority, sold the goods in his own name, without disclosing the• name of the principal. The situation of the broker was very different. The broker was not entrusted with the actual possession of the goods, nor had he a right to sell in his . own name. These were the principal distinctions between the two charac: ters. In this case the goods were entrusted t o Messrs. Coles, brothers, to dispose of in their character of brokers, and they had no the actual possession. It was true that they also appeared to the world in the-character of merchants, but it would be 'a very great restraint upon mercantile transactions, if a broker, who was also a merchant, could defeat the rights of the person who ens:- ployod him in the character of broker, by involv ing himself in the inconsistent "reSponsibilities of a merchant. It was urged in-this - cast,. as,a cir cumstance against the plaintiff's right to recover, that they were in the habit of permitting Messrs. Coles, brothers, to receive the proceeds of goods entrusted to them for Sale; but this circumstance did not at. all alter the case, when in fact it ap peared that Messrs, COles, brothers, were em ployed solely in the character of brokers. As this was a question to .be . determined solely by the preponderance of innocence on one side or on the other, it became necessary.to inquire what ,was the duty of the defendants under the circum stances, in which (as they knew) Messrs. Cole's, brothers, were placed. Knowing that those per sons were acting in the double characters. of brokers and merchants, it was their duty to have informed themselves, or at least to' have endea voured to inform themselves, in what character Messrs. Coles, brothers, acted with respect to the goods in question. This they had not done, Ill though they had competent means of so doing.— They. had been informed of the name of the vessel in which the sugars had arrived, and they knew by the delivery order that Messrs. Baring and Co. had at least something to do with the pro perty. They had, however,• not. availed them selves of these means of knowledge, which. they ought to have used, before they could justify themselves in defending this action of a set-off against the broker. • His Lordship would not say . that the defendants actually knew Messrs. Baring and Co. to be the owners of the sugars, but cer tainly they had abstained from inquiring into a fact, with reapuctito . which they had been Os sensed of competent means of inquiry. ‘,"- w st ink;, therefore, that the set-off in this c ase s ee merely an after-thou g ht, th e Court co uld n h a iti r , any reason for putting the defendants in a w e . • situation than the more innocent plaintiff'' d iqo Mr. Justice BAYLEY and Mr. Justice 11° %,iif entirely concurred in the opinion of 'thahiffs. Justice, and judgment was given for the 007 (OURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 13. SIR W. LEWES V. MORGAN. • ••'Ved • This interminable case again became 8 f t , ! Of discussion before their Lordships this Ay._ fee Mr. DauNcEy applied, on the part of the defenclacitjt, id an attachment. against Sir Wathin, for contempt of Crowe refusing to answer certain interrogatories filed by!il• c i t to Kau as far back as 1816; or that Mr. M org ao's autu a a oa the facts contained in tho se interrog ator i es s hould he. oe, pro coifessu against Sir Watkin, and that the PePliyol membrancer should p7oceed to arrange the accodot tt . I ;i ti • such affidavit so taken.—The Learned C ou nsel said the P ar. tiff had delayed answering these interrog ator i ei for thg ur c, pose of delaying justice, and evading. the order of' the m ot Mr. JERVIS, on the patt of Sir Watkin, oppo sed tiP h% off thin. lie denied that his client had any w ish to eva de r ies, der of the Court, or to avoid answering these interrogatc. On the contrary, he had been most anxious to put ilt ii?seace sever, and would have done so long ago but for the negl ec t,. of his solicitors, who had refnceffto attend him in the where Sir Wathin was confined. He had affidavits ttece fact in his hand, which be could read to the Court if n h o sary. He had no wish n o w to withhold his answ er to cco. interrogatories, but he trusted, as they embrace d facts eying a space of upwards of twenty years, namely , frolu when this suit commenced, to 1816, w h e n the inter ro g s do were filed, the Court w o uld give him a limited tilde t° it in. • us to Mr. Baron GRAHAM said the Court were most 03 0 . sr, bring this long suit to a termination, but they thoughlor Dauncey asked too much when lie desired that the ittoeirite.,o . sertion of the defendant should be taken as proof pro c, against the plaintiff. He thought it would be better to t u t o up the motion as suggested by Mr. Jervis, namely, plaintiff should have a limited time to answer the int err t hed tories, and if be neglected to answer within that tiot e t•i fi ct o, the defendant to be at liberty to file an affidavit to theia.o; contained in the interrogatories, which affidavit s i l• A tlfil t ' taken by the Remembrances as evidence against Sir t Lewes. This would prove to Sir \Vatkiu that hew a 9 • 0 , swer. cede - Mr. JErttrts said, Sir ¶Vatkin would most readily' aeoettii. what had been thrown out by his Lordship. With r i e the attachment, tiir Watkin was already in the Fle e 4,,0 0 therefore, as punishment, the Court could carrt-' • further. Mr. Baron Woou—True, the Court can c arry it 11° ‘„fift" - by *ay of punishment, but it may be made the m eans tootin the ends of justic e. itss till e. , Mr. g JERVIS asked that his client should hare . day dof next Term to answer in. • • Ale Mr. DAUNCEY thought that time was too long. , i iiie , Mr. Baron GARROW thought the plaintiff s houla li d_ time he asked, and if he did not time named, the defendant would come with as t !lb to the Court. Sted' O. put in his an swer r r e re , r - .The order was then drawn up in the terms sugg e v oi s * Sir Watkin Lewes, who was in Court, requeste d to say a' few'words in exculpation of himself, H ,i.; co d accused of disrespect towards the Court; no internioadere be further from his thoughts or intention. 0' , 4 .10 6 . 0 , wish to comply.. with their Lordship's order. 1 ".‘ 0 - e to P re terest to do so. There was a large sum of move) . ' l 4 , inter 4 as would appear when he shouldhave answered tlig t ; ot be 0 gatories, and if blame attached any where fur l'is_ oo dor t „,* • answered, it. attached to his Solicitors, of w hose,L ich he "e , suffering him to he attached for not doing that '' t beiot d e • most anxious to do, and would have done b had great reason to complain. He could producp.egioto sits of respectable persons to prove that he hie 1.10 sent to his Solicitors to come to him to prePare,i; they They refused to come, and he being a prisoner ' •Of could not go to them. watl , ?, 6- 00 . Mr. Baron GRAHAM was happy to hear Sir octi l oorri - this excuse for himself, though it was not a eot c ; i t , 0,4 a to the full effect, since the interrogatories relate ilo ot P -- within Sir tVatkin's own knowledge, and which Jig. .it 'f answered even without legal assistance. to pt 1 0 .` o d Sir Watkin humbly submitted to his LordslliP a lateftobl eici e e: t l l ll'l‘l. ; lint in his power so do so; the int,:rrogat-oris s-f tc fro 4 0 0 currences of 40 years' standing, and he could 0° o ver. answer without legal advice. He would nut, b° put in his answer in the given time. . .. _ .). • COAL MARKET, NuVEMBER IS' pri 0 4, 0 Ships at Market. • Ships sold. ,4 , ,• 0 • .'2S Newcastle... ..... l7 -........80. 6 d. t 4Si d , t 0 , ,,, 7 Sunderland 4l. ....3 64 . ' A d. to I Halbeath 1 .... ......3Ss•' • i • di _ . BIRTH. ltig°ret ~ On the 13th inst. It. Herne-bill,.Mrs.Tboniss, • , son. . -.. • Off 5 , _,,,: n iaeli g i pr - On the II th inst. at Norwood, Middlesex, ." - „hter 6 ' • - Esq. of the Isle of Wi••• 1 11 to Miss Parker, daub age • , , the Parker, Esq. of Southall, Middlesex. Eq . ' of 1 P On the wth inst..lames Joseph Sparrow, ,:jo i P bay Civil EStablishinent, to Anne Maria, tta Ramsay, Esq. late of the same establishmen t. . ____ ;* DIED. .. v . d &WY, , DOWAGER COUNTESS of Do'N:vlortE. --On ' T , r) 1 01-3 .1 - oh i ta very advanced age, at Southwood - House, ne th er La Charlotte, Dowager Countess of Dunmore. n.iloviti'd.4 five song and -four daughters, was a daughter of Alexander, seventh Eall'OL . 7 -- 6fth, P 2 " lis i i i was married the 21st of Feln•uary, 1759, to Jo"; )(0 0 W es er Duinnore, who died in March, 1809, and bY I ' the /4..0 Earl of Dunmore;. Augusta, now Lady Angus° •,,bo°,4, married at Rome, April 4, 1793, to his Royal Vi7deorgoll Duke of Sussex, and secondly, Dec. 5, 179 3, 3„. t , h ,, lare. d d ie, Council and Assembly of Virginia, Hanover-square, London, which marriage wa' " ri - d c Srl r rf 1 1)• and void by the Prerogative Court, in 17 9 : 4 ; 3 , ti est ° ais le born in Virginia, and named after it -at t he re o ie •.. o rt. of which b .14 _,ett, her father, was then Governor. , t Leel li Laii . On Thursday, the 12th inst. at her residence ~.. j olt `7:: aged 80 years, Sarah, the tact of the. lite Cairta'' • le o formerly of the Royal horse Guards (Blile)•,,,tor N l3c . On the 2d inst. at Hatfield ' rksiiire, Sir ...••-• , 1 o Baronet of l'ilarraren, North Britain. „ it tori ct A e bo to On the 12th inst. at John Since's, Esq• • / ( tr a iter I' l- • her 82(1 year, Mrs. Nugent, widow of Cttptaln, tree. and mother of Colonel Nugent, of Beaurnoln's it, ' .i. —,_----- ._,.0 c P ' 4 PROVINCIAL BIRTHS, MARRIAGE-' ` ;gip ter- ° , i f v- r B I lITHS• -1., Esq.- ~„ On Monday last,•the Lady of Charles BraDtf OP of a daughter. , v.. ',it 1' Same day, at Dawlish, the Lady of ''''"'! _, gruel, of a sun. —....toaoo"''' ---- . Plei;i, . • MARRIED. . .1 rio',..ime On the 81st ult. at the Ambassador's Cliapc,r„,,o, rett_o Elliington,,Esq. of Bath, and surgeon in Or . : ;I,uitio 03i ; I to Louisa,'yourigest daughter of the late C. , P t .0 010 Northernhay [louse, Exeter. Cot „I lO a rli f itr! °l4 . At Loddiswell Church, Devonshire, ° f Geer,g' , - •,,, 25th Light Dragoons, to Sophia, datightel 3 ,_ . ' roll,, h 0 P - Wise . ., of Woolston, Esq. a nt 1 1 3 -e 6r 411 On the Ist. inst. at Guernsey, Lienten to sot, .. of the Royal N• • • Merle Ant„ itiette, Co° ~) •g' at), to ' 04 • v jc ter! DIED. ..‘ ~,, of P - ..„, , On the 11th inst. Mr. Willimn ifi e--. ' t iroiof• v'tgr i ' r f • merchant. F ogh .. i wife., i Lately, at his house in Dublin, Mr. . t te. .• , .:.- t e., On the sth inst. at Ferrybridge,Marga,e ' ',)-• •.,..ob' • Lan' • " George Alderson. itte stoOP: ••• - go ds Same day, Mr. John Strickland, of 141 ..0 merchant. ~„. wife °( . d ote' On the 7th inst. in York, Mar'', t"" . ak p , • fil aebeC, 00 Siddall, late of Acomb. A i Nlr s ' 'll i e t thg - b e . On Saturday last, at Oxford, ag" --' se - •-•° 0 1° das 3 sh e ' ill Under the name of Mother Goose, an ta ble s f .d e ot g oo water-tresses, and other esculent vege . ... et y rc i f, :c r o al',lo well known for a long series of ye ars p,,el r yi . , ; ,.„ ,9yT , 0 now jug Gewle: el'Arcipto and was admitted toi l sort of Pririle,if occssluo .0 6 ! 1 place and neighboood : she atte!lde,tdcd"fatuirtlivllo° number of distinguished persons in th% failed t . r -, the University, troth whom she their benevolence. 19 '0 f / . '--..--. oi 1.4°.14 it'erl ----- ~,,1 11 11S be. f egli 1,11 LONDON: Printed by J. B. CAS•'' i pubi l6 s t'.'" - Or Orniond-street, Queen-square; al",..street, _ n th . • SCRIPPS, of No. 7, South lgoltt.coiotir , . , Office, No. 112, Strand ; where Au,' . .„ 0 019: - , , ,1" - , Letters, &e. (post-vaid).lnUst be as ~ , ~., . selde . 3 I ,' . ord /4 ~l t l •Or cot (h i he *te P tit o , ' • visi I „ l3r ead, e 44 4, P, - nees, P oi 11 4.8, co S 4 gsh e a , , t _ "' Th ere 14 kittit v ~fe l4 P' ,44: 2 :44 0 : *144.447:g -e t r t ti t r4AI 11 ISdi 64 ' otl th: ve r lit e Y 11111 tr-c the iks\ t, t , IN RI 'll % k 4v er„4 Th e 4 1)0 •t io c— of Vi t 140 ( ) ) ,; 8 4 )'4 st Ar• ell uNar, ti rl" at 1 tjl t P Ile Fitt! Nr T . N 1 ,4 lr rFe ~iTa s I,t, is ' Il e itz t . 4 ,t s of 414.5. • ► vi o for 4 o ii i Ad t t iun h s . l4, ...te'd . 1 als , ' ' 'lll kk: 1 4 4 t4Y4I lil t it ) tti 'mint t4l ' l 4 Y al "ti t • ri g 4 ,4 ho', k " k ; 44 "' k , 0 1 ti7 ) ; 11 . 44, t 4- 411